Can God’s existence be proved or disproved?

These are some of the arguments used for demonstrating that God’s existence has a degree of logical and scientific possibility.

Main arguments:

1. Cosmological (beginning of the universe):

A basic premise of science is that every effect has a cause, and it is the role of the scientist to establish this line of cause and effect. The argument made here is that the universe, even if it was created by the ‘big bang’, must have had something or someone who created the big bang, or whatever led up to its occurrence. This first cause is sometimes referred to as ‘the prime mover’, the original cause. It does not make logical sense that there is an infinite series of causes that never have an initial starting point, because we will always be asking: ‘but what caused that?’. This was for Ockham the main reason for the existence of God.

Another version of this is a Muslim argument called the Kalam cosmological argument which has been recently revised by William Craig. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause—the universe began to exist—therefore the universe has a cause.” This is based on the logical premise that ‘out of nothing comes nothing’. The alternative is that we believe that things can just pop into existence, which even the arch-sceptic Hume denied. William Craig goes on to explain the difference between an actual infinite (the infinite number of causes which leads up to the present) and a theoretical infinite (the infinite number of causes leading into the future, which have not yet happened). An actual infinite is complete and self-contained as no new members can be added to it. But some major logical absurdities arise if this is the case. For example, adding and dividing this ‘infinite, self-contained group still leaves an infinite answer which defies some of these mathematical laws. Hence Craig argues that there must be a finite number of causes which originated with the Big Bang, which originated with God.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) states that theoretically the world should be running down hill, going from order to disorder. This is derived from evidence to show that all life tends to lose its initial power and order and finds the path of least resistance, eg a river running downhill rather than uphill, or the sun gradually burning up its energy which it is doing constantly, but gradually diminishingly, giving out and losing its initial store of energy. This implies that originally something/ someone must have given the amount of energy and order to the world in order for it to begin and function, before it proceeded to diminish.

2. Design of the universe:

All things as we know them have a creator, especially complicated items such as those made by human beings, eg electronic machinery, large buildings, books, symphonies, etc. They do not just happen, even if given random chances over a very long period of time. But there are much more complicated parts of our world than what humans make, and these, as science continues to show, are the amazing building blocks and genetic designs of nature and especially human beings. Their complexity and breadth is almost beyond our comprehension. And we may still be only just scratching the surface of our understanding. After all, science has been through various levels of understanding already, and each one seems to reveal an added depth and complexity to our world, which even on the surface is incredibly diverse, beautiful and amazing.

Albert Einstein wrote: “I am not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” (Quoted in Flew (99) from Jammer ‘Einstein and Religion’ ,48.)

The following quotes are also from Einstein:

“Certain it is that a conviction, akin to a religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order…This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself to the world of experience, represents my conception of God.” (Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 255 quoted in Flew, 102)

“Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” (Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 93, quoted in Flew 102.)

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Einstein The Quotable Einstein, 195-196, quoted in Flew, 102-103.)

Equally, other quantum physics scientists such as Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schroedinger, and Paul Dirac saw direct links between the laws of nature and the Mind of God. Schroedinger wrote: “The scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about the sensation of red and blue, bitter and sweet, feelings of delight and sorrow. If knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” My View of the World, 93, quoted in Flew, 104-105)

Equally Max Planck wrote: There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.” He also said, “Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition…[and therefore] ‘On to God!’” Quoted in Flew, 105.

3. The Designer seems to be personal. Just as human designers are intelligent and purposeful and expressive in their designs (whether they be a dress designer, a rocket engineer or a composer of music, or whatever) so likewise if there is a creator of the universe, they must have an incredible ability to oversee in a logical and creative way the universe and all its complexity and beauty. Additionally, if there is a Creator who created conscious human beings, they must also be conscious and aware of other ‘beings’ whom they have created. How could a mechanical, impersonal, robotic ‘first cause’, create humane and self-aware beings such as humans?

4. Moral law within every culture and tribe or people: There seems to be an inherent and conscious awareness of what is morally right or good (and equally what is wrong or evil). Why is this the case? “Everyone knows certain principles. There is no land where murder is virtue and gratitude vice.” (J. Budziszewski, educator and author).

5. Widespread and ever-present belief in a God (or gods or supraterrestrial beings). Human beings have in the past and continue today to overwhelmingly believe in a divine being. Why is this? They are even finding parts of the brain that seem to be hardwired with this concept. And there is an increasing number of people who find satisfaction and meaning in life from this believed reality, as evidenced by the growth in a wide variety of faith communities around the world, despite the enlightenment and the scientific worldview that is sometimes used to challenge the concept of a God.

Pascal’s wager or challenge (as presented by the following matrix)

Pascal believed that on logical grounds we could not know whether God exists or not. And so, using his probability method he constructed the following matrix to demonstrate the possibilities that we have. He did not present it as a means of forcing people into faith, but in order to encourage them to consider the options, one of which includes the better option that God might exist. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that God is. Agnostocism in Pascal’s view is not possible, for we are already embarked in life, living out our choice.

God exists There is no God

Living as if God exists Life with God Only a more positive

truthfully, lovingly in this world and life in this world, but

humbly and dependently. and after death nothing after death.

(B)

(The universe is not only +∞ -N

a material reality)

(+ ∞) ( f 1)

Living as if God does separation from God Nil

not exist both in this life and after

(-B) death.

(Purely material existence)

- ∞ + N

(f2) (f3)

According to decision theory, the only value that matters in the matrix is the + ∞. Any matrix where f 1, f 2 and f 3 are all finite positive or negative numbers, results in (B) as being the only rational decision.

Arguments against the existence of God:

1.The problem of evil, i.e. ‘if God is good and all powerful, why does he allow evil to exist and happen?’ This, however, depends upon assuming that God, who is all powerful, cannot in his power, decide to relinquish part of his power and allow his creation to share in that power and so have the possibility of freewill and therefore be responsible for good and evil decisions and actions, which might include things that God does not accept, yet permits.

2. Another argument is Ockham’s razor which says that the fewer presuppositions and arguments needed to explain a phenomenon, the better. Some argue that the scientific atheistic worldview has a more simple way of understanding the world. But in more recent years this has been called into doubt by a number of philosophers, including Antony Flew, who question the idea of multiple universes in the world as providing the random possibility of coming up with one universe (ours) in which there is a phenomenal degree of chance that things have actually worked out. A more simple explanation, it would seem, is not the belief in thousands of other universes, but rather simply the belief in a ‘prime mover’ or creator God.

3. ‘…atheism requires omniscience (complete knowledge of everything)… atheists say that nothing exists outside the material world, placing them in a God-like position…In reality, this intellectual position is the height of arrogance…Atheism is an attempt to make humans into gods. That, in a way, is the ultimate irony: Atheists, in their denial of God, cannot but replace the truly omniscient God with…themselves!’ Strobel, 37-39.

Mike Pietsch March, 2010

0409 725 573

1